Re: (idm) Autechre "clones" or not!

From david turgeon
Sent Mon, Mar 8th 1999, 18:22

xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
> > i don't think that's quite it.  a "real musician" could do the most
> >  conventional stupid dance music track,
> technically he could, yes, but you would not find a good musician wasting his
> talent... that would go against him being a good muscian.

that's a little optimistic, don't you think?  :)  i've heard many good
musicians in any musical genre make music that was plain boring.  also,
by "talent", what do we mean?  "technical" talent (i.e. knowing how to
"play well") isn't as crucial in electronic music, where most of the
music is pre-programmed, thus the talent that is usually most needed is
instead compositional.  & well, you could find a technically perfect
track which would be totally plain boom-boom techno--& alternately you
could find a flawed track which would fit the "idm" definition.

> >  & a kid playing with techno toys
> >  could end up making actual "idm".
> Maybe you would call it IDM but I sure as well wouldn't.. nobody without
> talent can make good music, and that's what you're saying here.. that a person
> without talent could create something talented.. and that is ridiculous..
> unless of course your definition of IDM is different than mine. and you know
> what.. I think it is.

music cannot be "talented".  you can guess from hearing a good track
that the person(s) who made it must be talented, but that's as far as
you can go unless you're familiar with how exactly they do compose &
play their music.  hence a completely randomly generated track could
theorically sound brilliant although it was made the dumbest way.  then
again, that's an extreme example, but you only need one rebuttal to
break a theory, right?  :)

> >  i think the original idea behind idm was to give an alternative to the
> >  repetitive, unoriginal beats which then dominated techno music.
> Your saying that the originators of this widespread genre we know as IDM were
> inspired to create something new because they were bored with the unoriginal
> beats of the time. I don't believe that at all.. IDM is something that has
> existed ever since Kraftwerk. IDM is good electronic music, as oppossed to
> shitty electronic music. what makes it good is that musicianship, originality,
> creativity, skillfulness, insite, romantisism all the same ingrediants that
> have made good musicians since the beginning of music..That is really all

well.  kraftwerk for one were never categorized as "idm" before the 90s,
which for all i know is long after they made their most influential
work.  i don't want to be picky on genre boundaries & stuff, but when i
hear of "idm" i think of a relatively recent movement, even though it
has its roots in earlier forms of electronic music.

but, that said, we're more or less saying the same thing.  even if we
consider idm to be whatever intelligent electronic music that was ever
made, you'll still have to acknowledge that it had enough of an
influence on the other forms of electronic music that nowadays you can't
draw a line that dramatically separates idm & non-idm techno.  gabber
hardcore can be intelligent, acid house can be intelligent...  (& some
idm may be plain out stupid...  theorically of course!)

> there is to say about it. Artists such as aphex twin got the ball rolling
> faster in the small area of people creating IDM. Your definition is of IDM is
> far different than mine, and I don't quite care for yours, I think it's rather
> shallow, and extremely unromantic. Look at the term itself.. intelligent dance
> music, as opposed to stupid dance music.. that's all it means.. this is good..
> and that other stuff is shit.

ahhh, who needs romanticism when intelligence is at stake.  :)

-- 
david turgeon
curator, http://www.notype.com
web programmer, http://www.jumpmedia.com
xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx - icq #2358960